EMIUB – Initial Data Analysis

The data source used by this research is that collected by the Migration Dynamics, Urban Integration and Environment Survey of Burkina Faso (Enquête Migration, Insertion Urbaine et Environnement au Burkina Faso”) (Poirier et al., 2001). The survey, conducted in the year 2000 by the Demography Unit at the University of Ouagadougou (UERD), the Demography Department at the University of Montreal, and the Centre d’Etudes et de Recherche sur la Population pour le Développement (CERPOD), is nationally representative and comprises 4,258 households and 8,647 individuals aged between 15 and 64 at the time of the survey.

Beauchemin and Schoumaker (2005) report that the questionnaire covered a number of topics, including migration, employment, marital and birth histories. In particular, the data includes a complete migration history from the age of 6 for each surveyed individual. These histories

ranged from individuals who had never left their place of birth to a male from the southwest of the country who was aged 63 in the year 2000 and had relocated 21 times and changed jobs 11 times over the course of his migration history. With individualised migration trajectories spanning thirty or more years, the EMIUB data is almost unique for Africa and presents a valuable asset to this research.

The process of analysing the EMIUB data was necessary as the first step in both gaining familiarity with the migration histories of Burkinabé people and investigating the trends and themes evident in the data. One of the major tasks necessary in this process of analysis was the identification of what information was available from the dataset and what information would need to be gathered during the planned period of field interviews. The EMIUB data includes information on the geographical coordinates mentioned by respondents to the survey. As a representative national survey, these coordinates refer to locations across the whole of Burkina Faso. The geographical extent of the survey is displayed in Figure 4.1 where each unique location referred to by one or more respondent is identified by a marker and a reference number.

Figure 4.1: Screenshot from Google Earth showing the boundaries of Burkina Faso and neighbouring countries and each location referred to by a respondent to the EMIUB survey. Locations uploaded into Google Earth using a .kml file add-on.

One of the key pieces of information that it was hoped the EMIUB data might shed light upon for the purposes of this research were the motives for migration given by respondents. Research

investigating the role of rainfall in the migration decision would greatly benefit from a detailed record of the motives given by individuals for their historical migrations. As such, any direct references to rainfall through mentions of phenomena such as drought or flood could be analysed along with indirect references such as records of bad harvest yields. Table 4.1 and Figure 4.2 display all data recorded by the EMIUB survey on motives given by respondents for relocations related to changes in both employment and residence. Over the full 47 years of retrospective migration history data available, this results in a total of 26,851 relocations for which motive information is available. Within these listed motives 179 different reasons for migration were recorded by the EMIUB survey. As a result, the motives presented in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.2 are grouped into 10 broader categories.

Motive: Number: Percentage of Total:

Family 11,278 42.0%

Work 3,980 14.8%

Money 2,989 11.1%

Housing 2,298 8.6%

Study 1,842 6.9%

Return 1,789 6.7%

Independence 1,152 4.3%

Agriculture 663 2.5%

Other 526 2.0%

Health 334 1.2%

Table 4.1: EMIUB data on the individual motives for migration cited by respondents.

Figure 4.2: Proportional representation of the EMIUB data on the individual motives for migration cited by respondents.

Work

Money

Return

Family Agriculture Independence Study

Housing

Health Other

It can be seen from the results displayed in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.2 that by far the most common category of motives for migration cited by respondents were related to Family (42% of total). Specific motives within the Family category include marriage, helping parents/inlaws, the death of a parent or child, and rejoining a spouse. Of these, the most common, and the main contributor to the status of Family reasons as the primary motive category, is marriage, cited 6,757 times. The second largest category of motives cited is Work, within which the majority of motives relate to new or changing contracts, passing exams and changing ownership/

management of companies. Unlike the motives listed that fall within the Family category, no one motive dominates. Instead numerous motives are mentioned a similar number of times, the marginally most common of which is job postings. The third most commonly cited motive category, Money, is dominated by references to both seeking money and seeking better welfare.

The motive category considered most likely to include any reference to rainfall is that of Agriculture within which only 2.5% (663) of recorded motives fell. The most commonly cited of these referred to the general wish to raise crops or cattle. However, one of the agriculture related motives for migration cited by respondents translates to “as the rains stopped, there isn’t any more soil”. However, this, the only direct reference to rainfall and its impact upon the ability of people to inhabit an area, was only cited by respondents as the motive for migration 5 times out of the 26,851 responses given. As well as this direct reference to rainfall there are three potential indirect references to rainfall conditions also made by respondents that fall into the Agriculture category. The most common of these translates as, “bad harvest/famine” and was mentioned 66 times by respondents. Another vague reference to rainfall, this time more to the structural conditions of the location than a climatic variation, is that motive which translates as, “because here you cannot cultivate well”. This motive is referred to by respondents a total of 11 times throughout the EMIUB data. The final indirect reference to rainfall made in the Agricultural motives category translates as, “retreat of the gardening land” and is cited a total of 3 times.

Within the Agriculture category of motives cited by EMIUB respondents, a total of 85 of the total of 663 can be deemed to relate loosely to rainfall. Outside the Agriculture category, one other cited motive can also be considered to relate to rainfall. Categorised as falling within

‘Other’, this motive for migration translates to, “lack of water” and is cited by 15 migrants. Of the 26,851 motives cited for migrations recorded by the EMIUB survey, 100 (0.37%) therefore relate to rainfall. As discussed in Chapter 2, it is generally considered that people worldwide migrate for numerous, varied and interconnected reasons, and a single statement intended to

capture one’s motives for migration will rarely encompass the complexity of the factors pushing and pulling a person from one place to another. Despite the remarkably small number of references made to rainfall as the motive for migration in the EMIUB data, it can be assumed that rainfall is likely to have played a part in many more migration decisions than just the 100 recorded occurrences. For example, many of the references made to a change in employment status or seeking new employment may be partly due to changes in rainfall in one location but, in the eyes of the migrant, rainfall may not be the primary motive for migration. Instead, the economic circumstance an individual finds themselves in, perhaps as a result of rainfall conditions, may be considered the primary driving force behind the recorded relocation.

Due to the small number of references to rainfall as the motive for migration in the EMIUB data, and the difficulty of elucidating the role of changes in rainfall variability in causing other more often cited motives, there is little advantage to be gained through further analysis of the migration motive data obtained from the EMIUB survey. Although information on the migration motives of surveyed individuals is of limited use from the perspective of this research, the vast array of information contained within the EMIUB dataset is invaluable to the development of an ABM. The primary value of the data to this research is the information relating to the attributes of individuals seen to migrate at different points in time. In their analysis of the role of rainfall on the first out-migration in Burkina Faso, Henry et al. (2004a) used the EMIUB data to consider the factors affecting the first departure of an individual from their village. The authors found no evidence of an effect of rainfall conditions on the risk of first migration from rural areas when no distinction by destination or duration was made. They surmised that, overall migration behaviour in Burkina Faso was not very responsive to environmental factors as measured by rainfall variables but rather depended upon individual characteristics which, when taken into consideration, prove critical in measuring a relationship between rainfall conditions and the risk of leaving the village for the first time. The limited value of the migration motive information contained within the EMIUB dataset is reinforced by Henry et al.’s statement that the overall lack of a relationship between rainfall variability and migration agrees with results from the 1974-1975 National Migration Survey (Coulibaly and Vaugelade, 1981) where only 4% of respondents declared that they had migrated because of the severe drought occurring in the region at that time.

The retrospective nature of the EMIUB survey directly affects the temporal nature of the migration data it presents. Conducted in the year 2000, the survey covers only individuals that were alive and present in the survey locations at the time of interview. The age of respondents

ranges from 15 to 64 years and is intended to record migration histories for each individual from the age of 6 years onwards. As such, the earliest possible record of migration in the EMIUB data should be 1942. However, as a result of the age profile of individuals, intended to be representative of the communities being surveyed, fewer records are available in the data for older agents. As such, the retrospective extent of the migration history recorded by the EMIUB data is restricted by the age profile of the respondents. Figure 4.3 displays the age profile of the 8,647 respondents to the EMIUB survey.

Figure 4.3: Age profile of individuals surveyed by the EMIUB.

It can be seen from Figure 4.3 that there is a general trend of decreasing numbers of individuals recorded by the EMIUB survey with increased age. This is due to the retrospective and representative nature of the data and the relatively short life expectancy of Burkinabé people (currently reported by the UNPD (2011) as 57 years for women and 55 years for men). As such, the migration histories recorded by the survey will, as a function of the population interviewed, include a migration multiplier effect through time. The more individuals who are old enough to have been of an adequate age to migrate at any point in time, the more migration events will be recorded in the data. Figure 4.4 displays the number of migrations mentioned by all respondents to the EMIUB survey over the appropriate retrospective period.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63

year 2000 population

age

Figure 4.4: Migration profile recorded by the EMIUB survey between 1944 and 2000.

As anticipated, Figure 4.4 displays a general pattern of the number of recorded migrations increasing over time towards the date of the survey in 2000. The number of migrations recorded ranges from 1 in 1944 to 862 in 1999. A significant drop in the number of migrations can be seen in the year 2000 due to that being the survey year and therefore incomplete. The nature of the migration data as increasing over time presents a challenge for this research in terms of the process of data analysis required to inform ABM construction. Rather than an observed record of actual migration in Burkina Faso in each year, the EMIUB data is instead a retrospective history recounted only by those still alive and present at the time of the survey. Any individuals who were deceased or had migrated at the time of the survey are thus not included in the data.

As such, in performing data analysis it is important to remember that the migration data available should not be considered in real terms but as a proportion of the population upon whom data is available at the time in question.

Despite missing data on individuals who had migrated at the time of the survey, the retrospective nature of the EMIUB data should enable a relatively complete historical record by including individuals who were active migrants in previous years. Even if the then most active migrants within the population were absent from the record, the migration tendencies of such individuals should still be reflected in the historical record. By looking at the age structure of the surveyed individuals presented in Figure 4.3 it is proposed that the real impact of the potentially reduced record of year 2000 active and absent migrants is minimal. Many of the individuals surveyed in 2000 fall into the approximate age category within which migration is generally perceived to be most likely. However, in order to gain further insight into the existence of such a phenomenon, analysis of the gender distribution of survey respondents can

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

number of migrants

be undertaken. A total of 53% (4,571) of all individuals surveyed by the EMIUB were females with 47% (4,076) males. The official UNPD (2011) year 2000 Estimate Variant sex ratio is 97.9 males per 100 females. This should result in a population that is 50.5% females. The marginally higher percentage of females surveyed by the EMIUB may therefore suggest the existence of both the demographic phenomena identified by the United Nations and the aforementioned absence of some male migrants at the time of the survey. Along with age and gender information, the final primary demographic component clearly evident in the EMIUB data is the marital status of the surveyed individuals. Figure 4.5 displays the data relating to the marital status of respondents in the year 2000.

Figure 4.5: Percentage marital status of individuals surveyed by the EMIUB in 2000.

It is evident from Figure 4.5 that the most common marital status of surveyed individuals in Burkina Faso in 2000 was married (with one spouse). Meanwhile, 25% of individuals were single at the time of the survey. A total of 13% of individuals had married twice while only 4%

had married more than twice. Due to the limited information provided by the EMIUB data on rainfall-related motives for past migrations, the key benefit that can be drawn from the dataset is the annual migration record and temporal migrant attribute information it provides.